Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

gizmo

Kiith wrote: »

It's no surprise to be honest. Black Flag had them as well, didn't it?

The usual arguments will apply here, with people saying you don't need to buy them to enjoy the game properly. But it's just a matter of time before they go full mobile and require you to buy these sorts of things to properly progress. It's easy money for the publisher, and people clearly still buy the games. I'm just as guilty, as i bought Shadow of War.

Nah, I'm approaching the end of Black Flag and I haven't seen any sign of them. A little over two sequences left and outside of the Rope Dart both myself and the Jackdaw are fully upgraded. I hadn't even heard of Helix credits until I watched that video but as Falthyron said, they were first introduced in AC: Unity awhile back. That being said, they were in AC: Syndicate too so I believe it's just the ability to indirectly buy those crates in Origins that's new this time around.

I really can't see them hitting mobile levels though. Last time I gave those kinds of games a try it was with Marvel Future Fight and was completely put off by the sheer proliferation of currency and marketplace prompts everywhere I looked. I don't care if it's free and I certainly don't care if you have shed tonnes of content, if you game experience is compromised I'm out of there. I reckon it would take a titanic shift in peoples perception for that to become acceptable in the console or PC markets especially since high quality F2P exists on the various platforms which don't feature such invasive examples.

Penn

I think some companies are recognising they may be pushing things too far with microtransactions and loot boxes. Hell, if even Ubisoft have pared things back from previous AC games, that's saying something.

wes

Penn wrote: »

I think some companies are recognising they may be pushing things too far with microtransactions and loot boxes. Hell, if even Ubisoft have pared things back from previous AC games, that's saying something.

To be fair to Ubisoft, I didn't even notice some of the AC games had them, until it was pointed out to me. They tend not to be so in your face.

Penn

wes wrote: »

To be fair to Ubisoft, I didn't even notice some of the AC games had them, until it was pointed out to me. They tend not to be so in your face.

Really? I only played Unity for a few hours and it was one of the things that really put me off. It was the first game with Helix credits I believe, then some chests you couldn't open without the mobile app or something. In previous games you could buy or unlock previous assassin's robes from older games. I think in Unity you had to buy them with Helix credits.

The lootbox system is definitely more in your face nowadays, but I don't think they were in previous AC games. They're in Origins but a much more pared down version compared to other games.

gizmo

I think a bunch of companies are still feeling their way around the issue so we're probably going to get some particularly egregious examples as well as some relatively tame ones over the next while.

On the AC front, from looking around a few forums, a lot of folk seem to be able to get everything by just playing through Syndicate and collecting all the things which, while it may not be everyone's cup of tea, is how I tend to play them at least. Just got my Pistol Swords as a reward last night so yis can shove your unicorn in Origins. :pac:

Penn, in previous games you could unlock costumes with the uPlay points you got for getting achievements, has that been replaced by Helix credits?

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

Penn, in previous games you could unlock costumes with the uPlay points you got for getting achievements, has that been replaced by Helix credits?

Apologies, I think I was wrong on a few things regarding Unity (been that long since I played it and only played for a few hours). It seems you had to spend lots of in-game currency to upgrade stuff, or buy and use Helix credits to upgrade it quicker. Most of the assassin's robes from previous games (Ezio's, Connor's, Edward's) were actually locked behind having to play the Assassin's Creed Initiates game on Ubisoft's website. Then some chests in the game could only be unlocked through the Assassin's Creed Unity app.

Not sure what it's like in Syndicate or Origins.

gizmo

Penn wrote: »

Apologies, I think I was wrong on a few things regarding Unity (been that long since I played it and only played for a few hours). It seems you had to spend lots of in-game currency to upgrade stuff, or buy and use Helix credits to upgrade it quicker. Most of the assassin's robes from previous games (Ezio's, Connor's, Edward's) were actually locked behind having to play the Assassin's Creed Initiates game on Ubisoft's website. Then some chests in the game could only be unlocked through the Assassin's Creed Unity app.

Not sure what it's like in Syndicate or Origins.

Ugh, yea that was when they were all going through their "second screen" nonsense phase. That stuff better still be active by the time I get to Unity, probably won't get to it for another six months plus or something

SeantheMan

So expect MORE micro transactions in sports games etc in the future.
Even with all the backlash and people complaining about NBA 2K18 and their micro-transactions.....data was just released that says more people have spent more money on NBA2K18 than any other sports game this generation...due to these microtransactions.

SeantheMan

SeantheMan wrote: »

So expect MORE micro transactions in sports games etc in the future.
Even with all the backlash and people complaining about NBA 2K18 and their micro-transactions.....data was just released that says more people have spent more money on NBA2K18 than any other sports game this generation...due to these microtransactions.

But but, EA need to cover the development costs of their games....

It's a rising market, costs are up....
Annnnnnnd I just got sick in my mouth

The corporate speel for this stuff is just pathetic

https://youtu.be/diGMgXRnSpA

gizmo

SeantheMan wrote: »

So expect MORE micro transactions in sports games etc in the future.
Even with all the backlash and people complaining about NBA 2K18 and their micro-transactions.....data was just released that says more people have spent more money on NBA2K18 than any other sports game this generation...due to these microtransactions.

Do you mean the NPD Group report Forbes got? If so...

NBA 2K18 was the top selling sports game of September 2017. With one month of sales NBA 2K18 also became the best-selling sports game year to date. NBA 2K18 had the largest consumer spend in launch month of any Sports genre title since the current generation of consoles launched in November 2013. NBA 2K18 was the second best-selling game of September overall.

That will only refer to sales, not revenue generated from microtransactions. They don't and in most cases can't track that themselves. They do release other reports on the subject though which are relevant to the debate. The figures themselves aren't particularly surprising anyway, sales have been increasing slowly over the years, settling at a little over 4.5m copies sold in the first month to 8.5m almost a year later for the last iteration.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

But but, EA need to cover the development costs of their games....

It's a rising market, costs are up....
Annnnnnnd I just got sick in my mouth

The corporate speel for this stuff is just pathetic

That'd be Take-Two with the NBA 2K18 series, EA have NBA Live which according to the reports referenced here, doesn't fair so well.

As a matter of interest though, despite all the replies on this thread with various explanations of this stuff and links backing it up, do you reject all of it?

Whoever the publisher is that basketball game made record profits (80 million??) just from it's micro-transactions, on an annual lightly touched up game
The rhetoric about the the rising costs ect doesn't justify it in the slightest

gizmo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Whoever the publisher is that basketball game made record profits (80 million??) just from it's micro-transactions, on an annual lightly touched up game
The rhetoric about the the rising costs ect doesn't justify it in the slightest

Where did the $80m profit figure come from?

And the fact you think it's lightly touched up is kind of irrelevant. It still takes roughly 100* people a year of work to get it out on top of all the licencing fees inherent in those kinds of games. This isn't rhetoric, it's reality.

* based on the development team, Visual Concepts, being 51-200 people in size based on LinkedIn, the credits for the previous game here and them releasing two games per year.

EA Made 800 million off Just Fifa last year

Astonishing profits

Benzino

Businesses trying to make the most profit possible shocker!

Benzino

Benzino wrote: »

Businesses trying to make the most profit possible shocker!

So why push the rhetoric that of rising costs when the profits are massive
Especially like games that are released annually with minimum effort like Fifa
And people keep saying 100+ working on the game, the difference between one year and the next is slim and none

Benzino

M!Ck^ wrote: »

So why push the rhetoric that of rising costs when the profits are massive
Especially like games that are released annually with minimum effort like Fifa
And people keep saying 100+ working on the game, the difference between one year and the next is slim and none

Because there are rising costs, but companies see that people are willing to spend a lot on these sort of things, so naturally (for businesses) will try to make as much as possible from it. Why wouldn't they?

I'm sure there were 100+ people on the game. They don't change much, but they also don't have a lot of time to develop it.

gizmo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

EA Made 800 million off Just Fifa last year

Astonishing profits

It wasn't FIFA, it was Ultimate Team which made $800m in revenue, not profit, across all of the sports titles it was implemented in. That's about a quarter of their total revenue generated across their entire business.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

So why push the rhetoric that of rising costs when the profits are massive
Especially like games that are released annually with minimum effort like Fifa
And people keep saying 100+ working on the game, the difference between one year and the next is slim and none

Because costs are rising, we've been through this in the thread already. Look at this comparison of the NBA 2K18 series down the years, each of these cost the same at retail on release but do you think they cost the same amount to make?

Again, people aren't just saying those numbers worked on it, those numbers did work on it. Those numbers got paid and sat in studios which cost money to run. Do you think they got paid for just sitting around or maybe just because people can't see the difference in titles or think they take "minimum effort" doesn't mean it's true?

gimli2112

saw a youtube video mention some algorithm that governs matchmaking to encourage people to buy in-game stuff. Thought it was just a wind up. Just seen another video mention Activision (who else?) took out a patent on it in 2015

wheresmahbombs

gimli2112 wrote: »

saw a youtube video mention some algorithm that governs matchmaking to encourage people to buy in-game stuff. Thought it was just a wind up. Just seen another video mention Activision (who else?) took out a patent on it in 2015

Can't decide if EA or Activision is worse.

Sonics2k

gimli2112 wrote: »

saw a youtube video mention some algorithm that governs matchmaking to encourage people to buy in-game stuff. Thought it was just a wind up. Just seen another video mention Activision (who else?) took out a patent on it in 2015

iirc, it's true that Activision have taken out the patent, however they also said it's not currently active in any games. Just a theory.

sryanbruen

wheresmahbombs wrote: »

Can't decide if EA or Activision is worse.

Activision.

Jim with another great piece. Dead Space

gizmo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Jim with another great piece. Dead Space

It's not really though, Mick. Like his "The Sixty Dollar Myth" video, he's made another argument based on a falsehood in order to back his point. The most obvious in this context is the idea that the original Dead Space was a "commercial success" which, like Mirrors Edge, is just blatantly untrue. Starting with that false premise he ignores and even dismisses comments made from people involved with Visceral themselves about the development of the series, odd given his previous laments over them closing, ignores fan complaints that Dead Space 2 became more action-based than it's predecessor and then goes on to praise how it upped the quality quality stakes offering a bigger world etc.. all the while ignoring the very real repercussions of what that kind of move can mean for a title.

There are definitely some valid points to be made about the series and what EA did to it, some of which were raised in the Eurogamer piece when they interviewed the former creator of the series, but Sterling's approach sure as hell isn't the right way to go about it.

I don't mind Loot Boxes to a certain extent. I like the way they're done in the likes of Battlefield 1, where you get "battlecrates" for performing well or for successfully completing challenges. These are, mostly, cosmetic and don't affect the game itself.

Where they really annoy me is the pay-to-win microtransactions, where paying real world money gets you superior items, thus negating the need for actual skill.

sryanbruen

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't mind Loot Boxes to a certain extent. I like the way they're done in the likes of Battlefield 1, where you get "battlecrates" for performing well or for successfully completing challenges. These are, mostly, cosmetic and don't affect the game itself.

Where they really annoy me is the pay-to-win microtransactions, where paying real world money gets you superior items, thus negating the need for actual skill.

Cough cough Call of Duty cough cough.

They are actually dropping them in front of people in COD WW2
"Hey look what I got in my box"
Scummy

Penn

M!Ck^ wrote: »

They are actually dropping them in front of people in COD WW2
"Hey look what I got in my box"
Scummy

*tinfoil hat on*

Wouldn't be surprised if you get better stuff from your lootbox if there's another player nearby so they can see you get cool stuff and encourage them to buy lootboxes too

gizmo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

They are actually dropping them in front of people in COD WW2
"Hey look what I got in my box"
Scummy

What makes that even worse is that there's actually daily quests tied to watching other people open the boxes...

*sigh*

gizmo

gizmo wrote: »

What makes that even worse is that there's actually daily quests tied to watching other people open the boxes...

*sigh*

Well with the patent that leaked recently around Activision I'm not suprised
It's being going this way and only going to get worse